quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

What I'm applying it to is Social security in it's entirety. My solution as I've pointed out a number of times in this very thread is to eliminate the whole thing.

And I've been pointing out eliminating social security won't eliminate the problem. I never once asked, "what are you going to replace social security with?"

"You could totally eliminate SS and the criminals running this country would still find ways to spend/steal every penny and much much more."

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

"You could totally eliminate SS and the criminals running this country would still find ways to spend/steal every penny and much much more."

on this point we're entirely in agreement. My solution to that problem is a complete rollback of the state.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
It is my understanding that the people who first received SS made out very well. They were paid much more than they put in. That changed a long time ago. As I noted earlier a huge chunk goes to SS disability. I might add that there is minimal auditing of benefits by the government.

I found out about SS Disability the hard way.

My wife, an educated, intelligent woman, had been in senior business management and acted as a Real Estate Broker.

She suffered a brain bleed, resulting in Broca’s Aphasia as well as diminished capacity. She cannot speak without great difficulty, simple arithmetic is gone, she cannot drive.

I applied for SSD. Despite her extensive disabilities, her application was denied:

“The applicant can work as a Real Estate Broker.”

It required nine months of research, including examinations by the same Psychological Testing group that examined her at their request, except we had to pay several thousand dollars for their services.

The appeal was successful.

I found out from an attorney friend that SS almost routinely denies Disability unless it is so obvious that denial would be egregious. It is that way because so many fake or fraudulent applications hit their desk. Roughly 30% percent are initially rejected and only 1% are allowed.


My advice: No matter the disability, engage a specialist disability law firm to evaluate and prosecute the case. We won because my background included medicine and legal management of attorneys. I had hundreds of hours work to get her disability claim through.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

on this point we're entirely in agreement. My solution to that problem is a complete rollback of the state.

So, let’s be clear. You went from proposing as a solution to eliminate social security and , now, you’re proposing a complete rollback of the state?

You want to be perceived as a deep thinker even quoting Sowell. But you go from proposing eliminating social security to completely rolling back the state.

I take it you’re not aware that this comes across as immature and superficial thinking? I’m not insulting you; I’m seriously asking you to consider how your posts and comments are being read.

Cue the Beatles, “you say you want a revolution….”

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

on this point we're entirely in agreement. My solution to that problem is a complete rollback of the state.

So, let’s be clear. You went from proposing as a solution to eliminate social security and , now, you’re proposing a complete rollback of the state?

You want to be perceived as a deep thinker even quoting Sowell. But you go from proposing eliminating social security to completely rolling back the state.

I take it you’re not aware that this comes across as immature and superficial thinking? I’m not insulting you; I’m seriously asking you to consider how your posts and comments are being read.

Cue the Beatles, “you say you want a revolution….”

Let me put it to you this way, I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

When I start a discussion if I start with, we need to privatize all functions of the state, including police, and the justice system using insurance as a baseline for this engagement. Ill informed people even if they're well meaning dismiss that out of hand. I could quote you long swaths of Rothbard and Mises, I could direct your attention now to Argentina and how they cut their government and counter to the progressives, and a lot of conservatives expectation they're results are exactly in line with my, the above 2 economists, and Javier Mileis Austrian school of economic thinking.

However, I've found the trick is to advocate for an incremental approach to that end is significantly more successful. Now this may come as a shock to you, but eliminating social security moves us closer to that anti-statist position.

Hopefully that's made it crystal clear for you.

If' you'd like some light reading
read these.

https://cdn.mises.org/anatomy-of-the-state.pdf

https://cdn.mises.org/files/20...9/Human%20Action.pdf

once your ready, give this a spin.
https://www.amazon.com/Democra...cratic/dp/0765808684

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
My solution as I've pointed out a number of times in this very thread is to eliminate the whole thing.

How? Just eliminate everything to do with it in one stroke of the pen?

The negative consequences of that will be huge. While every thinking person knows the system is broken, there are immediate ramifications for tens of millions of people. And that will ripple on through the entire economy in every way. Though I personally will not starve or be homeless, my spending will greatly reduce. Multiply that throughout the economy and there will be a crash.

Beyond that, many will become homeless and starving. So now they will go onto welfare of some sort, which current workers pay for in taxes.

Some form of tailing off over time is necessary. Doing nothing will result in SS/Medicare collapsing entirely and suddenly. And, yes, Medicare is at least as big a financial disaster as SS. You'll have to propose some form of sharing the pain across the population for there to be any chance of ending SS.

Education of the masses will also be a key component. A shocking percentage of citizens over age 50 have essentially zero net savings. Younger people have no understanding of finance, and terrible habits as a result.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
My solution as I've pointed out a number of times in this very thread is to eliminate the whole thing.

How? Just eliminate everything to do with it in one stroke of the pen?

Yes. I understand that'll cause quite a bit of chaos, that's just too bad, change is painful.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Maybe the GenX, Millennials should just sit back and wait, all us "Boomers" are set to leave your generation with more wealth than ever before.

Keep pissing on our SS payments and we'll give it all to a registered charity, all we need is a Pint a day.......

Pay your rent, you'll be mega wealthy from all our hard work and effort, or maybe not, if you fuck with SSI....

Link

Gen X and Millennials Will Inherit Trillions in Real Estate Over the Next Decade

Baby boomers and older Americans have spent decades amassing one of the largest concentrations of private wealth in history. Now, that wealth is starting to be passed down to the next generation—and it’s having a ripple effect across the high-end property market.

Over the next decade, roughly 1.2 million individuals with net worths of $5 million or more are projected to pass down more than $38 trillion globally, according to a new report from brokerage Coldwell Banker Global Luxury reviewed exclusively by The Wall Street Journal.....

I am cautious at accepting this as eventual reality because of how much the system charges elderly people to die.

My mom was born in 1944 is not a boomer but for sake of discussion she may as well be. She sold her house in the Chicago suburbs and moved into an assisted living place near me in suburban Indianapolis in 2012 at the age of 68. She likes it there. Rent was $2000 a month to start, now it's $4000 for basic assisted living. No med management, no nursing services, no memory care. She has about $120K in the bank (I have her in CD's for now) plus decent income from SS, some crappy retirement investments, an IL university state pension (about 10 years service) and a pension my late father had that is now managed by the pension guaranty corporation. That company was about 10 years of service for him at an executive level but the PBGC pays only a part of what it would have been.

She can stay current and save money as long as I manage her money and she doesn't waste it on stupid things. But once she needs additional care, and I expect eventually memory care, the rent will increase dramatically, the money she has in the bank will deplete fast and then the only option will be to apply to for government assistance.

All financial planners will tell you - the cost of long term care is so high that you will spend everything they have and then when they are broke, apply for government benefits.

My only goal is that she can die solvent and comfortable and without me spending a ton of my own money on her care. If I inherit nothing, that is fine with me.

Many of those nice houses the boomers have will be sold off to finance elder care, in many cases after first moving to an old folks community. In an expensive area you are talking a lot more than what my mom is paying now.

If we were are smart in this forum, we would be investing in elder care, it's going to explode...

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
My solution as I've pointed out a number of times in this very thread is to eliminate the whole thing.

Yorgi, is that you?

quote:

Can you imagine? Imagine a city like Prague vanishing a cloud of poison gas, then Hamburg, London, Washington. Imagine not knowing who did it, or why, and so they turn on each other. These guys attack those guys, those guys invade these guys! Soon, the whole world implodes! Imagine governments disappearing, and in the end, imagine facing absolute, beautiful freedom. But neither of you will be there to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
My solution as I've pointed out a number of times in this very thread is to eliminate the whole thing.

Yorgi, is that you?

No, I'm more partial to a bowtie.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
My solution as I've pointed out a number of times in this very thread is to eliminate the whole thing.

How? Just eliminate everything to do with it in one stroke of the pen?

Yes. I understand that'll cause quite a bit of chaos, that's just too bad, change is painful.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

Well, I'm NOT an anarcho-capitalist. My daughter is more of an anarcho-capitalist.
I'm a classic liberal but I'm also a conservative where there's something worth conserving. I just don't think anarchy ever solved anything. I've had the same "talking points" since John Locke gave them to our founding fathers.

I've read a lot of Rothbard and Mises. I actually prefer Hayek's Constitution of Liberty.

But I don't completely disagree with you.

Why do we still have Obamacare?
Because the Republicans are afraid of "chaos".
Just rip off the bandaid and let's get on with it!

That's ok Chellium1, I'll take any friends I can pick up on the train to freedom, We've got plenty of time to convince you to stay on before we get to your stop.

quote:

I'll take any friends I can pick up on the train to freedom

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

Let me put it to you this way, I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

However, I've found the trick is to….

When I’m in a serious dialogue I refrain from trickery and I prefer the same from the party I’m dealing with. Rational and honest dialogue, for me, requires the absence of trickery and that successive remarks logically build upon and follow from the previous statements so much so that the other side should be able to see where you’re going before you get there.

I’m just going to bow out of this tete a tete with you as Fly Sig appears to be willing to engage with you. It’s not my cup of tea. This kind of talk reminds me of a conversation I had with a person in an assisted living facility. She was very engaging as her career was a journalist and she was very insightful until she declared we were in Oakland, CA versus San Francisco actually and she was the owner of the facility she was staying at when actually it was owned by my wife’s aunt. No offense intended; I’m just sharing this conversation brought up that memory.

I prefer to consider actual practical and implementable solutions. From my point of view, anarcho-capitalism is simply the other side of the same coin as the pigs in Animal Farm.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

Ill informed people even if they're well meaning dismiss that out of hand. I could quote you long swaths of Rothbard and Mises, I could direct your attention now to Argentina and how they cut their government and counter to the progressives, and a lot of conservatives expectation they're results are exactly in line with my, the above 2 economists, and Javier Mileis Austrian school of economic thinking.

When I’m in a serious dialogue I refrain from trickery and I prefer the same from the party I’m dealing with. Rational and honest dialogue, for me, requires the absence of trickery and that successive remarks logically build upon and follow from the previous statements so much so that the other side should be able to see where you’re going before you get there.

I’m just going to bow out of this tete a tete with you as Fly Sig appears to be willing to engage with you. It’s not my cup of tea. This kind of talk reminds me of a conversation I had with a person in an assisted living facility. She was very engaging as her career was a journalist and she was very insightful until she declared we were in Oakland, CA versus San Francisco actually and she was the owner of the facility she was staying at when actually it was owned by my wife’s aunt. No offense intended; I’m just sharing this conversation brought up that memory.

I prefer to consider actual practical and implementable solutions. From my point of view, anarcho-capitalism is simply the other side of the same coin as the pigs in Animal Farm.

I've fixed your quote for you.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
When I start a discussion if I start with, we need to privatize all functions of the state, including police, and the justice system using insurance as a baseline for this engagement. Ill informed people even if they're well meaning dismiss that out of hand. I could quote you long swaths of Rothbard and Mises, I could direct your attention now to Argentina and how they cut their government and counter to the progressives, and a lot of conservatives expectation they're results are exactly in line with my, the above 2 economists, and Javier Mileis Austrian school of economic thinking.

However, I've found the trick is to advocate for an incremental approach to that end is significantly more successful. Now this may come as a shock to you, but eliminating social security moves us closer to that anti-statist position.

Hopefully that's made it crystal clear for you.

I appreciate the honesty. It’s nice when the destination is stated clearly, even if the route there is mostly hand-waving and Austrian footnotes.

Quoting Rothbard and Mises explains why you want to get rid of Social Security. It doesn’t explain how you do that after compelling generations of workers to fund it under a very specific promise structure. Calling abolition “incremental” doesn’t magically solve the transition math—it just renames it.

Pointing to Argentina is also interesting, but unless Milei has discovered a way to unwind decades of mandatory contributions without writing them off, the example is inspirational rather than instructional.

I understand the political strategy: don’t lead with “abolish the state,” lead with something that nudges the system in that direction. Fair enough. But when that “nudge” involves effectively zeroing out obligations people were legally required to fund, it stops being reform and starts being confiscation—with better branding.

If the real answer is “yes, some people get burned on the way to a purer system,” that’s an honest position. Own it. Just don’t call it incremental and expect everyone else to suspend arithmetic.

Ideology can be elegant. Balance sheets are less forgiving.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

Let me put it to you this way, I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

However, I've found the trick is to…..

When I’m in a serious dialogue I refrain from trickery and I prefer the same from the party I’m dealing with. Rational and honest dialogue, for me, requires the absence of trickery and that successive remarks logically build upon and follow from the previous statements so much so that the other side should be able to see where you’re going before you get there.

I’m just going to bow out of this tete a tete with you as Fly Sig appears to be willing to engage with you. It’s not my cup of tea. This kind of talk reminds me of a conversation I had with a person in an assisted living facility. She was very engaging as her career was a journalist and she was very insightful until she declared we were in Oakland, CA versus San Francisco actually and she was the owner of the facility she was staying at when actually it was owned by my wife’s aunt. No offense intended; I’m just sharing this conversation brought up that memory.

I prefer to consider actual practical and implementable solutions. From my point of view, anarcho-capitalism is simply the other side of the same coin as the pigs in Animal Farm.

I've fixed your quote for you.

There was a thread in this forum about "fixing your quote for you." and the consensus and direction was people shouldn't do it.

I quoted the part that you said to which I was responding to. Do you not want to own what you said? What you did is just another indication to me of your level of maturity.

Did you not mean what you said? I guess you didn't mean what you said because you did say you want to scrap social security as the solution when you really meant you want to scrap the whole system. Have a great day!

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:
I understand the political strategy: don’t lead with “abolish the state,” lead with something that nudges the system in that direction. Fair enough. But when that “nudge” involves effectively zeroing out obligations people were legally required to fund, it stops being reform and starts being confiscation—with better branding.

If the real answer is “yes, some people get burned on the way to a purer system,” that’s an honest position. Own it. Just don’t call it incremental and expect everyone else to suspend arithmetic.

Ideology can be elegant. Balance sheets are less forgiving.

This is where I come down.

We can't abandon those who have paid into SS for 50 years and have an expectation that something will be there for them.

At the same time, it's a failed program and should be phased out.

It wouldn't even be difficult. Several ideas were proposed under GW Bush, which he quickly abandoned after some push back. He didn't want the fight. All you have to do is preserve the current system for those close to retirement age, and phase it out for everyone else. Allow people to invest those funds as they choose.
The S&P 500 average would greatly exceed your SS income over time.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
When I start a discussion if I start with, we need to privatize all functions of the state, including police, and the justice system using insurance as a baseline for this engagement. Ill informed people even if they're well meaning dismiss that out of hand. I could quote you long swaths of Rothbard and Mises, I could direct your attention now to Argentina and how they cut their government and counter to the progressives, and a lot of conservatives expectation they're results are exactly in line with my, the above 2 economists, and Javier Mileis Austrian school of economic thinking.

However, I've found the trick is to advocate for an incremental approach to that end is significantly more successful. Now this may come as a shock to you, but eliminating social security moves us closer to that anti-statist position.

Hopefully that's made it crystal clear for you.

I appreciate the honesty. It’s nice when the destination is stated clearly, even if the route there is mostly hand-waving and Austrian footnotes.

Quoting Rothbard and Mises explains why you want to get rid of Social Security. It doesn’t explain how you do that after compelling generations of workers to fund it under a very specific promise structure. Calling abolition “incremental” doesn’t magically solve the transition math—it just renames it.

Pointing to Argentina is also interesting, but unless Milei has discovered a way to unwind decades of mandatory contributions without writing them off, the example is inspirational rather than instructional.

I understand the political strategy: don’t lead with “abolish the state,” lead with something that nudges the system in that direction. Fair enough. But when that “nudge” involves effectively zeroing out obligations people were legally required to fund, it stops being reform and starts being confiscation—with better branding.

If the real answer is “yes, some people get burned on the way to a purer system,” that’s an honest position. Own it. Just don’t call it incremental and expect everyone else to suspend arithmetic.

Ideology can be elegant. Balance sheets are less forgiving.

Let's use an example outside of the united states, an example where the entire system collapsed under its own ineptitude.

Where was your bleeding heart for the people born in the Soviet union when that system collapsed and after compelling generations of workers to fund it under a very specific promise structure?

Just because a tremendous number of people were compelled against their will and better interest does not obligate others to be victims of the same bad system.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

Let me put it to you this way, I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

However, I've found the trick is to…..

When I’m in a serious dialogue I refrain from trickery and I prefer the same from the party I’m dealing with. Rational and honest dialogue, for me, requires the absence of trickery and that successive remarks logically build upon and follow from the previous statements so much so that the other side should be able to see where you’re going before you get there.

I’m just going to bow out of this tete a tete with you as Fly Sig appears to be willing to engage with you. It’s not my cup of tea. This kind of talk reminds me of a conversation I had with a person in an assisted living facility. She was very engaging as her career was a journalist and she was very insightful until she declared we were in Oakland, CA versus San Francisco actually and she was the owner of the facility she was staying at when actually it was owned by my wife’s aunt. No offense intended; I’m just sharing this conversation brought up that memory.

I prefer to consider actual practical and implementable solutions. From my point of view, anarcho-capitalism is simply the other side of the same coin as the pigs in Animal Farm.

I've fixed your quote for you.

There was a thread in this forum about "fixing your quote for you." and the consensus and direction was people shouldn't do it.

I quoted the part that you said to which I was responding to. Do you not want to own what you said? What you did is just another indication to me of your level of maturity.

Did you not mean what you said? I guess you didn't mean what you said because you did say you want to scrap social security as the solution when you really meant you want to scrap the whole system. Have a great day!

Because I addressed your post even before you posted it, you're not some genius who's going to come up with some new proof or idea that counters my outside the norm however logically coherent position. On the face of it where I stand economically, and effectively politically most people can't even conceive of such a thing because they've been lead around by the nose by statists, just like you have been.

In short Yes, I very much meant what I said, but you're to busy being a California scold to take a minute and think on it. If you'd like to come back around once you've learned a thing or two I'm more than happy to help you.